Cern: First evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ−

In summary, the Large Hadron Collider has detected one of the rarest particle decays seen in Nature. The finding deals a significant blow to the theory of physics known as supersymmetry. Gordon Kane, comments below that that the result is not unexpected for SUSY/string.
  • #1
d3mm
140
1
BBC News reported this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100
Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider have detected one of the rarest particle decays seen in Nature. The finding deals a significant blow to the theory of physics known as supersymmetry.

Here's the actual paper

https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1493302/files/PAPER-2012-043.pdf [Broken]
First evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ−
The LHCb collaboration

What does this actually mean for Susy etc?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
I notice the following:

- Dorrigo makes no claim re. supersymmetry
- Matt Strassler , in his blog, also makes no such claim; only that SM survives another test.
- The actual paper does not mention Susy

Gordon Kane, comments below that that the result is not unexpected for SUSY/string.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstringy-compactifications.html#more


Is there any source for the 'contradictions' besides BBC?
 
  • #4
As always, SUSY can evade these things just by having the superpartners be heavy enough to not to contribute much to these processes. These flavour constraints eat up various chunks of parameter space that are different to direct searches and dark matter constraints etc. though, so they are still important.
 
  • #5
@kurros, then how can you test supersymmetry if there's no strict prediction on the sizes of the masses?
(even a range of the predicted masses).
 
  • #6
MathematicalPhysicist said:
@kurros, then how can you test supersymmetry if there's no strict prediction on the sizes of the masses?
(even a range of the predicted masses).

Well the most awesome way would be if the LHC sees the superpartners directly one of these days. Aside from that, you can only get an idea of what sorts of masses they should have through these indirect measurements. With Bs->mu+mu- for instance, if it had been observed to occur at a rate somewhat higher than the SM predicts, then you would be able to compute what superparter masses can give you this correct value (there would be a lot of possible combinations but it would be narrowed down). Presumably there would follow the observation of other processes also deviating from the SM predictions and together this would let you narrow it down further. Maybe you would get some information from dark matter searches at some point. If the Higgs decay to two photons persists as being too frequent then that too gives you information. There is also the muon anomalous magnetic moment, which seems to deviate from the SM prediction, but which people still argue somewhat over what the SM prediction actually is (they have trouble computing it due to QCD effects).

But none of these things tell you as much as actually observing superpartners and measuring their masses directly.
 
  • #7
And what will make people abandon supersymmetry? Or nobody thinks of this option?
 
  • #8
MathematicalPhysicist said:
And what will make people abandon supersymmetry? Or nobody thinks of this option?

They will only abandon it when some new phenomenon that is wildly incompatible with it is observed. Say we get good evidence for dark matter scattering in these underground detectors, and it is totally irreconcilable with SUSY, or likewise if some new particles start appearing at the LHC which in no way could possibly be SUSY particles. Or perhaps the most likely way is if upon continued investigation of the Higgs sector we discover that there is some complicated stuff going on there that cannot be explained by SUSY.

As long as we continue to see everything compatible with the standard model, SUSY cannot be killed. SUSY predictions can always be made to be exactly the same as the SM predictions for sufficiently decoupled superpartners.

It is basically an Occams razor thing. In general, the community will assume everything is going according to the Standard Model plan until forced to concede otherwise. Next SUSY is the simplest (arguably) choice, so they will try to cram any observations into that framework. Only once SUSY really definitely cannot explain something will they turn to other ideas (although of course there are people working on other ideas all the time, I just mean those will not become mainstream until the previous mainstream ideas are really unworkable).
 
Last edited:
  • #9
PAllen said:
I notice the following:
- Dorrigo makes no claim re. supersymmetry
Is there any source for the 'contradictions' besides BBC?
Dorigo says
The decay of the B mesons to muon pairs are ... important, because they proceed via loop quantum diagrams within which existing particles may circulate. And since these loops are virtual, even very massive particles, even ones we do not know yet about, would produce a significant contribution. So measuring the rate of the rare decays allow us to gauge whether there is new physics in store for us, or whether there is just a desert of Standard Model physics awaiting us at the high-energy frontier.
The BBC's quote was
Prof Val Gibson, leader of the Cambridge University LHCb team, said that the new result was "putting our supersymmetry theory colleagues in a spin". ... Supporters of supersymmetry, however, such as Prof John Ellis of King's College London, said that the observation is "quite consistent with supersymmetry". "In fact," he said, "(it) was actually expected in (some) supersymmetric models. I certainly won't lose any sleep over the result."
 
  • #10
kurros said:
As long as we continue to see everything compatible with the standard model, SUSY cannot be killed. SUSY predictions can always be made to be exactly the same as the SM predictions for sufficiently decoupled superpartners.

But if SUSY doesn't exist at the electroweak unification scale, then it loses its theoretical motivation. Nobody would have proposed it if they had already known that it wasn't going to operate at the electroweak scale.
 
  • #11
That's not true at all. Supersymmetry is widely used in cosmological model building, for applications in Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis, as well as the theory of inflation. It serves many purposes as well in GUT model building.

It also seems vital for quantum gravity for any number of theoretical reasons, many of which are general arguments involving black holes etc

The reason it is still so popular in electroweak model building is precisely because there is a distinct lack of credible alternatives for so many pressing questions that really must be answered.

So I agree with the poster above. It won't disappear as a credible idea unless some other new physics is observed or invented, that explains away all those problems in a simpler more elegant and natural fashion. Until that time, all that the LHC is doing is eating up parameter space.
 
  • #12
SUSY is not going anywhere as a theory in general. But if it is ruled out as a solution to the hierarchy problem then it loses the motivation for it to be at the EW scale.

SUSY is very popular for many reasons. One of the major reasons is that it is within many physicists confort zones. I think it would be better for physics if the LHC finds something non-perturbative to push the community to understand strongly coupled theories.
 
  • #13
So it has no agreed on effect on supersymmetry, but it does strengthen the standard model?
 
  • #14
d3mm said:
So it has no agreed on effect on supersymmetry, but it does strengthen the standard model?

That is how I would describe it.
 

1. What is Cern and why is it significant?

Cern stands for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, and it is the world's largest particle physics laboratory. It is significant because it is responsible for groundbreaking research and discoveries in the field of particle physics, including the recent evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ−.

2. What is the decay Bs → μ+μ− and why is it important?

The decay Bs → μ+μ− is a rare process in which a particle called the Bs meson decays into a pair of muons. This decay is important because it is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics, and its observation can help us better understand the fundamental forces and particles that make up our universe.

3. How did scientists at Cern detect the decay Bs → μ+μ−?

Scientists at Cern detected the decay Bs → μ+μ− using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a powerful particle accelerator. They collected and analyzed data from proton-proton collisions at the LHC, looking for signs of the rare decay in the debris produced by these collisions.

4. What does this evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ− tell us about the Standard Model?

The evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ− supports the predictions of the Standard Model, which is the current theory that explains the behavior of subatomic particles and the fundamental forces that govern them. This discovery provides further confirmation of the accuracy of the Standard Model.

5. What are the potential implications of this discovery for future research at Cern?

This discovery opens up new possibilities for future research at Cern, as it provides a better understanding of the behavior and properties of the Bs meson. This can help scientists explore other rare decays and potentially discover new particles or phenomena that are not yet predicted by the Standard Model.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
49
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
11K
Back
Top